Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Complainant Rajveer Singh, Advocate, (respondent no. 5) in present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., moved a criminal complaint case against Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited (applicant no. 1) and three others, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 272/273 IPC by them, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 20.03.2007, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 513/2007. The contents of the criminal complaint case are important for properly elucidating the controversy in hand, and therefore, the important facts which matter, are being summarized hereunder. 2. The complainant Advocate, who is a resident of Kashipur (District Udham Singh Nagar), purchased ten bottles of 200 ml Fanta, five bottles of 300 ml Limca, five bottles of 200 ml Thums Up and five bottles of 300 ml Thums Up, on 17.09.2006, from the Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Najibabad, situated at Afzalgarh, District Bijnore (U.P.) for the purpose of consumption in a social get-together, which was to be hosted at his house, at Kashipur. The complainant brought these bottles to his residence (at Kashipur). The complainant hosted a party on 20.09.2006, at 8:00 p.m., at his residence. When the bottles were opened in the course of social get- together, a rubber band was seen inside the sealed bottle of Fanta (200 ml). Small pieces of plastic bag were seen in another bottle of Limca (300 ml). These products were manufactured by Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Limited, Najibabad. The complainant was put to embarrassment in presence of his guests. Had any of the guests consumed the product filled up in the bottles, the same would have been injurious to their health. The complainant gave the names of those persons, in whose presence the bottles were purchased. The complainant also mentioned the names of those two persons, who were also present in the party. The complainant further gave the names of the accused persons, who, according to him, were responsible for such offences. Coca Cola company and it’s employees did not pay any attention in maintaining the quality and standard of the product, according to the complainant. The employees of the company were irresponsible and careless towards the health of general public (including the complainant). Any casualty could have been caused (by their negligent act). The accused persons were playing with human life. Coca Cola company and it’s employees did not pay any attention in maintaining the quality and standard of the product, according to the complainant. The employees of the company were irresponsible and careless towards the health of general public (including the complainant). Any casualty could have been caused (by their negligent act). The accused persons were playing with human life. The act of the accused persons caused mental harassment and financial hardship to the complainant. A notice to this effect was served upon the accused persons on 28.09.2006. They did not respond to the notice. An FIR was attempted to be lodged in PS Kashipur, without success, and hence the criminal complaint. Having found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the said offences. Aggrieved against the impugned order, initially a Criminal Writ Petition was preferred, which was converted into present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants sought several reliefs in the writ petition including declaration of implied repeal of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and holding Sections 272 and 273 IPC as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Needless to say that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited and hence this Court is keeping itself confined to the parameters assigned to it by the statute. 3. A bare perusal of the complaint indicates that the bottles of soft drinks were purchased at Afzalgarh, District Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh from the shop of Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Najibabad. Afzalgarh and Nazibabad are situated in District Bijnore, which fall within the territory of state of Uttar Pradesh. This fact is thus under no dispute that the soft drinks were purchased in District Bijnore and were carried to Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand for the purpose of consumption. 4. A reading of Section 272 IPC will manifest that such offence is directed against the person, who adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious (harmful, poisonous, unwholesome) as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink. 5. 5. Thus the offence will be made out against the person, who adulterates, which word, according to Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition, Thomson West) means, ‘to debase or make impure by adding a foreign or inferior substance’. 6. An offence under Section 273 will make out against the person who sells or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink. 7. Thus, according to averments contained in the complaint, the product was sold to the complainant in District Bijnore (U.P.). The soft drinks, in final form, whether adulterated or otherwise, were presented as final product in District Bijnore (U.P.). If there were pieces of plastic bag or rubber band inside the bottles, the same were already there in the bottles, when the complainant purchased the same (or the dealer sold the same) in District Bijnore. The product was thereafter carried to Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand) by the complainant. The offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, if any, were complete in District Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh itself. 8. Section 177 of Cr.P.C., provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. On the face of the complaint, the offences under Sections 272 and 273, if any, were committed within the jurisdiction of District Binjore. As has been said above, the offences complained of against the accused persons were already complete in the territory of District Bijnore (U.P.). It cannot be said, on the face of the facts contained in the complaint, that the alleged offences were committed partly in one local area and partly in another. It also cannot be said that the offences complained of against the accused persons were continuing offences. It also cannot be held that the offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC consisted of several acts done in different local areas, so as to attract Section 178 Cr.P.C. This is also not a case in which it could be said that if the same was done in District Bijnore, (U.P.), a consequence of which ensued in Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand). Had the complainant or any of his family members or any of his friends consumed the same either in District Bijnore or on their way back to Kashipur, and God forbid, something untoward would have happened as a result of such drink being noxious, the situation would have been otherwise. In that case, according to Sections 179, 180, 181 & 182 Cr.P.C., the offence committed in respect of such consequential event, or related event, or deception, if any, practiced by means of letters etc. would have been tried either in District Bijnore (U.P.) or in District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand). Had the offence been committed whilst in the course of performing a journey by the complainant, the offence might by inquired into or tried by a court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey, as is envisaged under Section 183 of Cr.P.C. But the instant case does not fall in any of these categories, which attract territorial jurisdiction, both in Uttar Pradesh as well as Uttarakhand. 9. The 2nd principle propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2103) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, prima facie establish the offence or not? In the instant case, even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments, that a prima facie case against the accused persons is made out, the fact remans that the same was committed in the territory of Afzalgarh, District Bijnore (U.P.), and not in Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand). 10. In exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence or not? Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. 11. The High Court should not unduly interfere. But as per principle laid down in the Magna Carta of Section 482 Cr.P.C., where there is an expressed legal bar enacted in any provision of Cr.P.C. or any specific law in force to the very initiation of institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, or such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused, this Court should step in and interfere in exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The provisions of chapter XIII Cr.P.C. are intended for this purpose. It is being said at the cost of repetition that the Court in District Bijnore (U.P.) only and not the Court in District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand) has territorial jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in criminal complaint case filed by Shri Rajveer Singh, Advocate/Complainant. 12. When any Court ceases to have jurisdiction in the matter, then it has no locus to dwell on the merits of that case, and should, therefore, yield to the Court which is about to seize with the matter. This Court is proposing to do exactly the same. 13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, disposed of by directing that the Criminal Complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.